Print

[PS3Scene]

Blu-ray continues to outpace HD DVD with '300' release Posted by XanTium | 8-8-2007 18:29 EST

From usatoday.com: The stylistic Spartan battle film 300 has charged to the fastest sales start of any high-def video disc release yet, according to Warner Home Video. Consumers have purchased more than 250,000 copies of the film in the competing Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD formats since its release July 31. That far surpasses the previous hot seller, also from Warner, The Departed, which took three months to sell 100,000 copies. So far, the Blu-ray Disc version of 300 is outselling the HD DVD version, 65% to 35%. According to Home Media Research, that mirrors the overall sales pattern this year (Jan-June), with Blu-ray accounting for 67% and 33% for HD DVD,. Full Story: usatoday.com

[epsilon72]

Anything is better than a stalemate.

Still, they should also include the sales figures for the DVD version of 300 to show how small high def disk sales are right now.

[Jase Winter]

I bought the hd-dvd version myself, had a hd-dvd exclusive extra i believe.

[tummybanana]

QUOTE(Jase Winter @ Aug 9 2007, 12:47 AM)

I bought the hd-dvd version myself, had a hd-dvd exclusive extra i believe.

i got the dvd/hd dvd of it from play......fantastic print.....
beats me why blu ray fans want a crippled disc that doesnt have the features on it tho....so much for a superior format

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(tummybanana @ Aug 8 2007, 07:53 PM)

i got the dvd/hd dvd of it from play......fantastic print.....
beats me why blu ray fans want a crippled disc that doesnt have the features on it tho....so much for a superior format

haven't we learned... market perception is the new truth.

[Ninja Sniper X]

Well I think I must have had my head in my ass for the last half a year. the Blu-ray version doesnt have any special features? I'm glad I got the HD-DVD version now lol.

[Thraxen]

Honestly, most people don't really give a sh!t about extras anyway.  I can't even remember the last time I've done any more than watch the movie on a disc of any kind.  That's cool that you guys like the extras on 300, hopefully those extras will keep you happy after HD-DVD dies  (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[lmaolmao]

i cant see how hd-dvd is the "superior format".  both discs use the same codecs, so essentially the same file.  But blu-ray has more space.  manufacturing costs, access times, and special features (p.s. most extras are in SD and no-one watches them) dont interest me whatsoever, if extras we're such a big thing, they would show them in theatres.  

To me 50gb of space allows for the longer films (LOTR, etc.) to fit on one disc. plus allows plenty more space for uncrompressed sound.  Most HD-DVD films are ~25gb  and those are 2 hour films.

and blu-ray is slightly cheaper.

plus the boxes are blue, and not red.  and everyone knows blue is the better colour.

[tummybanana]

QUOTE(lmaolmao @ Aug 9 2007, 10:29 AM)

i cant see how hd-dvd is the "superior format".  both discs use the same codecs, so essentially the same file.  But blu-ray has more space.  manufacturing costs, access times, and special features (p.s. most extras are in SD and no-one watches them) dont interest me whatsoever, if extras we're such a big thing, they would show them in theatres.  

To me 50gb of space allows for the longer films (LOTR, etc.) to fit on one disc. plus allows plenty more space for uncrompressed sound.  Most HD-DVD films are ~25gb  and those are 2 hour films.

and blu-ray is slightly cheaper.

plus the boxes are blue, and not red.  and everyone knows blue is the better colour.

you like it just coz of the colour?..those long winter nights must just fly by

[Mr Invader]

QUOTE(lmaolmao @ Aug 9 2007, 04:29 AM)

To me 50gb of space allows for the longer films (LOTR, etc.) to fit on one disc. plus allows plenty more space for uncrompressed sound.  Most HD-DVD films are ~25gb  and those are 2 hour films.

HD-DVD with MPEG-2= 3.3 hours
Blu-ray with MPEG-2= 5.6

HD-DVD with VC-1= 5.1 hours
Blu-ray with VC-1= 8.5 hours

all easily big enough for long 3 hour movies

QUOTE

and blu-ray is slightly cheaper.

Except for their players. And for the most part, their movies are the same prices for the same amount of features.

QUOTE

plus the boxes are blue, and not red.  and everyone knows blue is the better colour.

The red color with HD-DVD goes well with the blood splatter on the 300 case; but then again, who gives a crap?

[Kamasutra318]

QUOTE(Ninja Sniper X @ Aug 9 2007, 01:08 AM)

Well I think I must have had my head in my ass for the last half a year. the Blu-ray version doesnt have any special features? I'm glad I got the HD-DVD version now lol.

It has all the special features that the DVD has. It just doesn't have certain exclusive special features like PiP, web-enabled content, and some lame game.

Maybe some people didn't want to pay extra for those extra features. I know that's not the reason it costs more, but who really cares about having a DVD side? Also, the Blu-ray comes with PCM audio. More importantly, I wouldn't want a movie on a dying format; this story in itself is evidence of that. This is not the first time Warner has done something like this, but they did announce that there would likely be a re-release with those extras.

QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Aug 9 2007, 11:06 AM)

HD-DVD with MPEG-2= 3.3 hours
Blu-ray with MPEG-2= 5.6

HD-DVD with VC-1= 5.1 hours
Blu-ray with VC-1= 8.5 hours

That's pretty arbitrary. The length of the movie depends on the bitrate of the video and what kind of audio they put on there. If they want a PiP feature that would need to go on the same disc too. Unrelated, but H.264 is my preferred codec.

This post has been edited by Kamasutra318: Aug 9 2007, 05:00 PM

[throwingks]

QUOTE(Kamasutra318 @ Aug 9 2007, 11:49 AM)

That's pretty arbitrary. The length of the movie depends on the bitrate of the video and what kind of audio they put on there. If they want a PiP feature that would need to go on the same disc too. Unrelated, but H.264 is my preferred codec.

That isn't arbitrary. That is the amount of video at a constant max bitrate. That is the threshold.

[Kamasutra318]

That doesn't seem right. At the maximum video bit rate for Blu-ray (40Mbps), you can only fit 2.78 hours on a BD-50. And that's not including the other things I mentioned.

If you wanted purely video at those lengths, the average bit rates would be:
HD DVD for 3.3hrs = 20.2 Mbps
Blu-ray for 5.6hrs = 19.9 Mbps
HD DVD for 5.1hrs = 13.1 Mbps
Blu-ray for 8.5hrs = 13.1 Mbps

This post has been edited by Kamasutra318: Aug 9 2007, 08:36 PM

[tummybanana]

QUOTE(Kamasutra318 @ Aug 9 2007, 04:49 PM)

Maybe some people didn't want to pay extra for those extra features. I know that's not the reason it costs more, but who really cares about having a DVD side?

those that want to watch it in the bedroom of other place maybe?.....and rip it to hdd too.....why buy 2 discs when you can have it on one flipper?

and for the vast amount of times both discs are the same price, here in the uk at any rate....

[colt45joe]

300 on Blu-ray actually sounds better than the hd-dvd release because of the extra space.

This post has been edited by colt45joe: Aug 10 2007, 04:02 AM